>> what i can confirm is that 45 p. the top rate of tax will be higher under this government than any of the 13 years of the last government. that is the fact. that's the richest in the country will be paying more in terms of income tax in every of this government than in any year of that government. ..

was investing eight hundred million pounds, an excellent eight hundred million pounds to combat tax avoidance. there was no such investment taking place with 15% cut in the budget. is the prime minister guilty of tax of points for tax evasion? >> $900 million into specific majors of tax avoidance. all these schemes grew up under years of labour government. they never did a general tax avoidance. they presided over a system where people in the city were paying less taxes than their cleaners and the government has sorted out. >> not to be remembered as the prime minister introduced regulation of the press, an essential part of a free democracy. would you agree with me that

regulation derives -- you are pregnant or not pregnant. you either have state regulation or you don't. there is no alternative third way. >> i would agree with my hon. friend. is it a free press? absolutely vital for free democracy? we should recognize all the press has done and should continue to do to uncover wrongdoing, stand up to the powerful. whatever changes we make we want a robust and free press in our country. >> research by the charity save the children, reveals shockingly that in our country when seven children does not have a warm coat this winter. the government is cutting child benefits support to 100,000 families who look out for disabled children. whenever our views on how our economic problems were brought

about, surely it cannot be right that the poorest and most vulnerable hay -- [shouting] >> the point i make is we have removed and of removing child benefit from people and earning 60,000 pounds a year. we think that is the right step to take because those with the broadest backs should be bearing the greatest burden. we have frozen child benefits for other families that increased the child tax credit that goes to the forced -- poorest families. >> mr. secretary -- >> here on c-span2 we leave the british house of commons as they move on to other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7:00 a.m. eastern when parliament is in session. you can see this week's question time that sunday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span.

for more information go to c-span.org and click on c-span series for prime minister's questions, international news media and legislatures around the world. you can also watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> the house transportation infrastructure committee held a hearing today on amtrak's restructuring plan. members will hear from the inspector general and amtrak's president on recommendations for improving operations. you can see it live at:00 eastern on c-span. >> washburn worked his way up, went to harvard law school and at the origin of one of his brothers immigrated out west to the illinois to clean up where the mining industry was in its heyday. he arrived after about a month's journey by ship, by stagecoach,

by train, arrived in a steamboat in this muddy mining town, bordered himself and a log cabin, and slowly worked his way up and became a very successful lawyer and got involved politically, ran for congress, served eight terms and befriended abraham lincoln and ulysses s. grant and as they rose, washburn stayed with them as a colleague during the civil war and after grant was elected president initially appointed washburn secretary of state and washburn became very ill, after ten days he submitted his resignation to president grant

show grant regretfully had his resignation and he regained his health which was always very fragile and grant the then offered him the position as minister of france, ambassador of france. >> michael hill on washburn, minister to france in the 1870 franco prussian war, and the only power of the state providing political and humanitarian support. q&a sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> now a discussion on entrepreneurship, immigration reform and innovation. economist douglas holtz-eakin and aol co-founder steve case, at the aspen institute for 30 minutes. >> next we have a panel on america and where it is going,

steve clemens -- steve clemons is the empress area of washington ideas. >> hey, folks. everybody is running to the thompson reuters counter. thank you for joining us. great to be with you. i am steve -- steve clemons, editor of large of the atlantic, i want to compliment the museum and tell you how historic this is. this is a jam packed day. the google party is coming up, this is one of three times in the history of the museum that they have allowed an outside group, the other happened to be the president of the united states and madeleine albright when she was secretary of state, this is the third time for a during the day session here, this is a great partnership.

i think the -- i have a friend here, allen was the founder of circuit city, just apparently wrote the rise and fall of circuit city and to some degree they are uncomfortable truths, when you think of nations and companies, there are rise and fall stories and the united states is so clean not on the fall side but political campaigns are a lousy time to think about the truth of what is happening. one of the hard truths, there were five white guys, we tried to figure out, tall guys and doug and we are very well aware of this. you would not believe how busy -- we had a more diverse -- for all those who say we would love to build you into the conversation, what i want to talk about is a strategic

economic choice facing the nation. strategy in economics, is there more something fundamental about the way the united states is positioned, with its choices are. michael porter who is here with us, wave so we know who you are, not very diverse, michael is a distinguished professor from harvard business school who has his own followers, acolytes. when i worked in the senate in the 1990s, our whole staff were riveted to much of michael's work and guidance, we read just talking in the green room that had we listened and moved the needle on the shoes back then the united states might not be in the same position. to michael's left we have robert kimit, who live thought was the smart guy who would have evolved it mitt romney had come in, he would have been national security adviser, secretary of the treasury, he was deputy secretary during president bush

and happened to be a senior foreign policy ambassador to germany and is one of the very few people who synthesizes the economic and national security in such a holistic way. his dad was a famous democrat who was one of the reasons i moved to washington, really great to have bob here. to michael porter's right ahead douglas holtz-eakin iran the congressional budget office and is a distinguished economist. he was john mccain's economic adviser in the first campaign. he is now running the american action forum. he is one of the best hot shots on fiscal issues but does it kindly and then we have steve case. i wanted to give him chairmanship of the jobs council, jeff immelt had that but not for long. steve case, one of the founders and chairman of aol, he chairs

the entrepreneurship council, chairman of revolution, very tied up in trying to think about what are the spark the drive innovation, creativity, how do you drive young people here. you have been involved in a major study, u.s. competitive project at harvard business school. engage thousands of people, thousands of voices, discussions with hundreds of economic leaders and come up with a eight point plan of things you are advocating. i have gone through and some of that makes a lot of sense to me. it would have made sense in the 1990s and the 1980s. what makes you think this is such a big deal now? >> i want to say we have had a chance to interact with the jobs council in the harvard business school effort and tremendous alignment. tremendous alignment, the striking thing we found is we all agree on almost everything that needs to be done except we can't do any of it.

this is now an opportunity we have -- >> let me interrupt. you said the immigration of highly skilled individuals is one and it sounds like sean hannity is on your side. is that a more doable -- >> i hope so. what i would like to do is to say that the fiscal cliff issue we have been talking about all they hear -- all week, is really important and we have to make progress right now towards a sustainable budget. a lot of experts sitting here about why that is important but based on our work there's a much broader competitiveness problem facing the u.s. right now. has been building for decades, it is not a recession, it has been building for decade-sapping the ability of the american economy to grow, and the average

american to rise. to make the u.s. less competitive, less attractive for business, we go back to the fiscal cliff discussion over and over again because unless we get the economy really moving and growing in a long run, these budget problems will occur over and over again. we have identified eight areas where we find, these things would move the needle in a reasonable time frame, two or three or four years we start to see impact and there's quite bipartisan support. and the sustainable budget compromise. number 2, easing immigration now. we need a broader immigration reform, but it is one of the abilities to move rapidly to

inject skill to the economy to fill jobs we badly need to fill to sustain our growth. it is not long term solution to the skill problem in america but a critical step we need to take to move the needle. we have got to simplify and realize the corporate tax code. everybody agrees. we just did a survey that included a loss of members of the general public, not business leaders, not sophisticated observers of the economy but the general public, and 70% of the general public believe we need to simplify the corporate tax code. that is how deep the understanding of the problem. we can't have a tax code that simply is complex and have higher rates and more complexity than anyplace else in the world. we have got to address distortions in the international trading system that really hurt a high service, high innovation, high technology economy. we did not worry about those

when we were doing well but now they are in the way of making progress, we need to reduce happy complexity. not eliminate regulation but go through the process in a simpler and more logical and efficient way. this was the number one thing thousands of business people we interviewed and surveyed said was the biggest barrier to investing in the u.s. complicated regulatory morass. we need to upgrade our infrastructure but we have to focus on those parts of the infrastructure that are economically important that end pork-barrel system, everybody gets their road. we have to understand the bottlenecks, things better driving up the cost of doing business. we know what those are the we need a plan to go forward. we need to create a framework for rapidly developing the windfall we have gotten from this wholesale gas and oil revolution. we have a path to energy independence in america that is

$200 billion deficit right now. it is the bridge to renewable energy, renewable energy will take a long time. if we can move to gas we get tremendous benefits in terms of cleaner energy on the way to renewable energy future. if we could get those things done, steve, this would be transformational for our economy but we have not been able to act on these things even though i said earlier there is wide bipartisan -- >> thank you. let me just try to poke holes in this. if we rollback time to just before the financial crisis you look at the u.s. deposition. douglas holtz-eakin was out there talking about that already. and john mccain and others have been but it is much worse today but if you look at the deck in a different way, look at private sector debt, the fact, forget government debt. before the financial crisis private-sector debt was 160% of gdp in the united states and

despite averaging, back to 160% of gdp we are still in crisis mode, you had structural corruption between regulators and financial institutions and any place in the economy and a private sector event that led to a government response and worsening of the debt issues. why isn't it ever on this list to get the private sector under control? there is nothing in here in the list of saying we need to bring that down or right values down. it is a question i want to ask because you have been so much on the government that side. is there -- think about restoring balance to the u.s. economy and the u.s. consumer and i look at how much debt overhang is out there i don't know where you grow if you lead the private dimension out there where it is today. >> there's a lot to that but obviously we are trying to get transparency on the balance sheets, we have done the dodd-frank, hardly finished,

that takes care of the financial plummet, making sure it does not fall apart. [talking over each other] >> fundamentally corrupt. things haven't been there. the bigger problem is the flip side. they match that. now we realize people don't save. that is central for along time. that is the thing we never fixed and that is driving of affect we have financial problems and the fact we have big problems, return to financial messes going up worldwide for cost of labor everywhere, americans don't have anything to take advantage of. equally wide. we will fight a land war in asia over tax issues we will never fix the inequality problem if we don't get ahead. >> steve? >> there are a lot of issues we need to focus on and it is great at a forum like this to do that with the results of the election over so we can focus less on politics and more on policy.

there are many issues. one is central and that is making sure we remain the world's most entrepreneurialism nation. this nation was a start of over 200 years ago and has grown to be the leading economy in the world and the leader of the free world on the back of not just the patriots who form the country, sphere but on entrepreneurs who took risks to create entire industries. that is why we are the leader and we need to build on that remain the leader but when we have been having these debate other countries the last week in years have gotten more focused, recognized on the power of the american economy is entrepreneurship, changing policies around immigration, changing policy from capital investment to policies around research investment to drive more, it is actually a globalization of on for free orship but that is troubling. the good news is we are still the leader and we can build on this. one thing that did get done this

year -- >> is there evidence we are leader? [talking over each other] >> it is evidence based on where the innovation is coming from and where the entrepreneurship is flowing and other countries that in the. one point net is sobering facts, the venture firm that back facebook decade ago, all their venture investors were in silicon valley. now they have more investors in china than silicon valley. that sets the context, the troubling thing. the positive thing is the one area this year related to the jobs, we economy, didn't work together in a bipartisan way were the support of the president was jump starting the business start-ups to legalize crowd funding, very important for entrepreneurs and areas that don't have venture-capital which -- >> you like government. >> i like the free-market. government has to set the context of things related to security and access to capital. the government has to grow the big issue of immigration which

is critical, highly skilled immigration has to be a fix, more work to be done. the good news also is there's not a bill that was introduced in a bipartisan way by senator marco rubio and senator warner of virginia, senator moran of kansas called start of 2.0 building on the job act and dealing with high skills to create entrepreneur and visa and yield these issues around regulation and dishes on commercialization research but now we have the election over we can focus on if we take that step and keep celebrating the work of all entrepreneurs creating new industries i am confident we will remain -- we can't be complacent have battles or discussions other nations are racing forward and there's a reason to be concerned. i look at it optimistically as an entrepreneur and say the glass is half full, not half empty but only if -- >> michael has been an optimist and he is saying we have a chance, you are an optimist. can i invite some pessimism?

>> i am fundamentally optimistic. [laughter] >> we have big problems. i am a budget guy but if you think about the structure of the budget, the structure and value of the political system, we have huge programs like social security, medicare and medicaid, legacy programs serving all americans. those programs are crushing the discretionary talents which are where we fund national security based research and education. the core functions of government. our budget allows a path to the future. how we structure ritter and that is a fundamentally -- against what steve is talking about. we have to agree that innovation will solve our health care problems and education problems and energy problems. we have to agree we will compete

so those innovations i transferred as part of market share. >> i want to jump to bob for a second. when you go around the world before 9/11, 2001, and talk to a nations, of very international crowd and ask what they thought of the united states, admired the united states and they resented the united states because it that time they didn't believe there were any boundaries to what could be done. that looks at the united states as the most innovative place in the world, constantly pull rabbits out of the hat and reinvent itself. go around world today facie a nation constrained, tied down, exhausted, limited, militarily overreaching, economically--even talking to tim geithner, can you go around and tell other economies what to do when you're in a glass house? it has been real limiting. when you look at barack obama's

first meeting with angela merkel in london when the global economy was on fire is interesting. she laid down the gauntlet. we are not going to play by your rules. we are not going to spend like you are telling us to do. it has been interesting as a superpower to look at all limits we have even influencing a nation like germany. and yet brussels i asked to you think america has the same growth we once had that could influence the international system? i would love to see how you see the challenges ahead in at geostrategic context? >> i think a strong economy is critical to u.s. national security, strong military. in this post financial crisis era, economics and finance are every bit as important as traditional diplomatic and military levels of policy. using the word throw away, a measure of how much nuclear

megatonnage could be delivered, i think we have moved from an era where the measure of the nation's strength or vulnerability to an era where sovereign interest rates were a measure of strength or vulnerability so the move from throw weight to interest rates, precision, how much megatonnage we had based on his soil. angela merkel can tell you with precision about the most recent group. that really requires a change of thinking on our part. the world has always looked to the u.s. in a somewhat perplexed fashion. ..

>> i'll give real credit to the obama administration. they been very good on investment. president obama was the first democrat in 30 years without an open investments. why? because foreign direct investment to the u.s. creates jobs that are disproportionately export oriented, disproportionately manufacturing oriented, and our 50% more likely to be unionized. this is capital we should be fighting for. i think we need to approach in the second obama term with the second -- same degree with confidence going to the point michael me. i think the world agree to

engage with us. angela merkel proposed the free trade agreement in her speech issue. i think we should pick up on that and go for it. there's a trans-pacific partnership being negotiated out in asia, chinese are not part of the negotiation but they follow it very, very closely. let's just proceed with confidence because i think people want us to. >> you mentioned china, thank goodness. can't have a discussion with out china. jonathan and i were in china this year. everywhere we went jonathan doggedly woodpaneled the chinese with this thing, what are you going to do if mitt romney wins and on day one calls china a currency manipulator. the chinese didn't think mitt romney would do that and now they don't have that test. what's interesting during the obama campaign, i was on an e-mail list. bill woods in these notes housing barack obama is a bigger china basher than mitt romney. mitt romney is not a real genuine chinese basher but we

are. no one is talking but china now but it was a real red meat issue during the debate. does everyone remember talking about china? it's disappeared. as you raised it and i want to come back to something that michel's initiative and to think about the harvard business school, was it hard talk about china? we're talking 1 billion people coming online. we were at a dinner the other night with the bono which was the opening performer for us the night before, the ceo of the bankamerica and we got a discussion about china. and bono said, if we're not careful china will annex the continent of africa. that there's so much deep investment, they have so much concern, so much strategic interests across the way, and america is largely absent. which brings back these questions, we get this stuff right, is this directed just at making us feel good, or do you gain ground in a competitive environment against china? >> we absolutely gain ground.

i want to see, we have real strengths in america. with strengths in the things all the other countries die for. hire education, entrepreneurial climate, a lot of science and technology, enormous dynamism in this country and a lot of strengths. but what we've done is we allowed a bunch of unnecessary costs of doing business to grow up and creep up. by in action basically. at the same time as all these other countries, and, of course, i work around the world on this topic, all the other countries have whole task forces of national leaders that work every day to drive down the cost of doing business and make the infrastructure better and make better airports and make better data communications, and make it simpler to do business. so what's happened is we've taken for granted, we have these great strengths can look at us, we're wonderful. we've not been able to make progress. we're not talking about hard stuff. talking about keeping our infrastructure modern. we are talking about not sorted through all kind of obstacles in

terms of the regulatory approaches we take. it's simple stuff. but really to me, i'm optimistic because of the core strengths, but the real concern is, is how do we take action? how can we be strategic? how can we actually start taking the initiative began in moving this country forward? >> do you guys think that's possible? we were talking about this night, we're talking about, to be quite honest, i admire the obama administration but there's not a lot of strategy today. it's very reacted to events. we have a world where we wait for a crisis and then move. doug, i'd like to dissuade me from the. you worked for john mccain. you hang out with eric cantor. grover norquist is your tomorrow. these are your pals. [laughter] >> i hang with an interesting bunch. >> first, is it fun? and secondly, am i wrong that we're in -- i agree with what a lot of what michael is trying to take us, but i, as a realist to

use to work for richard nixon, look at the world as it is not as i hope it might be. i guess my question is to you, do you believe given the people you know that there's a chance for strategic response to these things as opposed to reactive response? because of their inability to get along with the guys in the white house, and gals? >> we just don't get along but that's been true for a long time so how do you get past that? we have to go back to a different kind of leadership, the kindly with ronald reagan, with bill clinton, where presidential leadership meant here's what america needs. i will send this bill, say to the congress. what that does for the congress is against them air cover. they can say we don't want to do this. the president -- >> maybe obama ought to make bill clinton the fiscal cliff envoy spent i've heard he did. [laughter] >> this is important. to bridge that sort of standing

and staring at each other. take this debt. better internal leadership. secondly, i want to go back to what bob said. we have to be more outward focused. we have given up engaging in africa and around the globe. all the customers are out there. all the income growth is out there. adding those guys helps us in defense issues and other things. we are not doing that now. >> republican support -- >> that may do it. >> so maybe to get it right an outward looking -- >> what would an american renewal agenda be comprised of? >> let's negotiate the first trade agreement in over four years. president obama is the first president not to negotiate a trade agreement. he got through -- >> he didn't negotiate south korea. >> those were negotiated -- >> they were negotiated by the previous administration but the bottom line is we have an opportunity right now in europe

and asia to knock down barriers, tariffs and nontariff barriers. overwhelming support from the republican for the. i thing would've been tougher in the first of i understand politics, but this is a time to i think move on from that. the only point i would disagree with michael a little bit is we've got those problems that you just mentioned. europe and japan have been much worse than we, so we need to help our current largest trading partners it right by knocking down these barriers so we can all engage china and other emerging markets in a way that serves everybody's interest. >> a possible secretary of commerce in the current administration. what would you think about -- >> let's get ahead of -- >> first of all, the world is still in the is of the american innovation, as michael a sinker to travel around the world. they are pretty good at scaling but not so good at inventing, creating the early stage, the

star trek they are better at speed up than they are at startup. they are quite envious. i want to go back to this issue a bipartisan support and talk about the president but also about the republican side. the president did two years ago create a national advisory council of innovation for entrepreneurs. that got the ball rolling in the conference department. created part of it, this entrepreneurship focus. also launch start up america ever try to push forward within the government to focus more on high-growth. will so great a start of america partnership innocent, and the private sector effort. the job council made series -- a series of recommendations around a year ago, a roadmap to get us back to the white house took that and that led to the jobs act which then only got done because the president had put on the table and eric cantor rallied the house to support. so did get done in a bipartisan

way, 80% of republicans and democrats in the senate and house who voted for the. the reason is because of the net job creation the last three decades is from high-growth companies. 40 million jobs. you want to get an 8% unemployment rate down. want to get 2% economic growth rate up and you want to stay competitive globally. the place to double down and focus innovation and entrepreneurship. it did happen around the jobs act. election is over. it must start but there is recognition on both sides that there are many issues that are being debated in this conference in the city and they are all important issues. the most important issue is making sure we double down on entrepreneurship and keep our lead, build on early. we know we need to do. we now need to build up our partisan coalition to make sure happens. >> i just want to say, to have a fight this is exactly, this is a doctor what we need to do. george bush didn't do this either. we outsource to the congress providing a things and that's a mistake. i also like started things with this lot of agreement. looking outward and trade would

help, jobs, something like that so the parties talk to each other by. we don't have to get to these big decisions which were now facing. they don't even know each other and have no idea what their common ground is. that's our problem. >> i would just very much agree with steve's assessment. the concern is with apple and apple does make anything in america. so what's that telling us? it's telling us we've got a great entrepreneurial engine that is working but again we made the cost and complexity of doing business in this country prohibitive. as bill gates was saying earlier, we haven't recent our skill base enough to have employees who confirmed that high wage that americans need to earn. so i think although much leadership as part of the solution and it has been bipartisan to support small business, frankly i think we have to create an environment for all business. if are going to take advantage

of -- i come back to a lot of this is blocking and tackling. a lot of it is being long-term and being strategic. whatever it's worth, our harvard school of business alumni are all over the world. out international alumni have been even more anxious than the school took us on a more positive and even our domestic alumni. we believe most of, sort of people and the rest of the world actually understand, a successful america that is growing, that is vital is a positive thing in the world. we've been able to help lead the open and global economy. we been able to i think create some positive dynamic in the way the global economy is developing. and without america pushing, what are the alternatives? and we really like the chinese economic model as kind of the

new view of how the world is coming? >> one thing of want to clarify. of course business in general we want to support. as you look at the job growth, it is a from small business. it's not from big business. is from young, high-growth entrepreneurial business. i love small businesses. [talking over each other] >> there is a good article in wall street journal, you've got to focus, small business and large business our great. the future of america is going to be young high-growth companies. that's when you to focus. the jobs active they are. the start of act doesn't. >> bob, we're out of time but i want to get you for a quick moment. waggle around the world again and asked people what they think the sources of american power our, the even say the pentagon or the size of the federal debt, like if you're the biggest debtor in the world take issued certain power.

are you optimistic that these can be really reversed, like 30 seconds? >> i'm very optimistic about america's future. i think we have to approach the future with confidence. we have to get our house right at home but we have to be prepared to engage with confidence abroad. we still are that shining a light on the hill that people look to. they are disappointed when we don't deliver. we are disappointed when we'd don't deliver. i think we can both at home and abroad find a way. it's not going to be simple. our government takes longer to get things done and the real economy would like. we've got to intersect but at the end of the day i'm optimistic that we can move forward. >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause] >> i'm like doctor doom, i come

on stage. the eternal foot man. >> if you missed any of the previous program you can see it in its entirety at the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. we are live at the newseum here in washington for remarks from the founder and president of americans for tax reform, grover norquist. he is the featured guest of this morning's politico playbook breakfast. is expected to talk about the so-called fiscal cliff and debt and deficit reduction. mr. norquist said no for promoting his no new taxes pledge to gop lawmakers. politico's chief white house correspondent mike allen will lead off the discussion with issues of questions. we expected to get underway in just a moment like you on c-span2. -- live here on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] >> thanks for coming out. this is two weeks in a row. [inaudible] we appreciate your being here. we are excited to have grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. welcome all. [inaudible] people who are following us on twitter, tweet us at hash tag -- [inaudible] we will take questions.

we want to thank bank of america supporting these series, these issues. those that matter most to us. today we're going to talk about a very important issue -- [inaudible] we appreciate bank of america. [inaudible] we would love to take your questions. i would love to bring up grover norquist. good morning, grover. [applause] >> thank you very much.

thank you very much for coming out. [inaudible] look, here's the challenge. group the republican party, the party that won't raise your taxes. [inaudible] in the past is difficult to say to somebody, oh, i won't raise your taxes. why would we believe even. so, because people would have we so would have we so worked in a statement they didn't want to raise taxes. the pledge takes the weasel words out and says i'm going to

go to the state capital as governor, state legislators washington as a congressman, senator, president i'm going to reform president. -- government. i'm not going to raise taxes. intelligent awful lot about what you want to know if they make that commitment in writing because they can't take it back. >> when republicans are running and primaries you always get them on record doing this. i think 90% of the current house republicans have signed and 93% of the incoming house republican class signed it. people used to be afraid of you. last night on "the colbert report," when they mention your name they had a link. it's like republicans are less afraid of you now. are you melting, losing her power before our very i? >> two things are both fiction. one is the scenario that republicans were afraid of americans for tax reform, and they took the pledge because i told them to.

that's stephen colbert territory. that's harry reid. that's what they say. that's nonsense. people take the pledge but the reason why most republican than a handful of democrats take the pledge is the only 10 to raise taxes. we just and the pledge of in the mail and people make that commitment and campaign on it and make it part of -- >> if you're running in a republican primary, it's very helpful to you, effectively difficult to run in a republican primary without signing it. they are in a box. the republicans, county and look for a way out of? >> no. which general have is a little so here's complicated bill. it's got a lot of moving parts. does it raise taxes? look, it's pretty clear in those cases. the important part of the pledge is it allows people to credibly commit they're not going to raise taxes and the people know who and what they are. is allowed john boehner and mitch mcconnell to govern

recently. it's about the republican governors passed out ushers at the red states for the 24 states republican governors, republican legislature. blue are the 13 of 40 state spending on how you count new york, 13 of 14 state that a democratic governor and a democratic house and senate. and there you see the red states are not raising taxes. they're cutting taxes in the red states and blue states are raising taxes rather than reforming government. so the fight we're having in washington where there's gridlock in the stage of the opposite of gridlock. for the last two years. "new york times" wrote an article about last week, it's been true for two-year -- >> about the legislators -- >> the legislative in the various states that you've got 24 states if the republicans get together they can turn the state into hong kong or texas. you have 13 maybe 14 states if the democrats because they could turn their state into greece or

california. >> we are in washington and the wording goes back to 86, right? >> yes. part of passing the 86 bill. we did as americans for tax reform. >> the wording, except a few numbers, the wording of the pledge hasn't changed. in 1986 when people first sign that pledge, the federal budget deficit was 220 billion. this year is 1.1 trillion. how can you say nothing has changed across lots of things have changed if we elect, for so we elected bush to focus not on spending. look, people vastly between the pledge or creates all the worst problems and a fledgling does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level and at the national level. we haven't had republican vote for an income tax since 1990 when bush did and threw away his presidency. and 93 tax increase which has only a democratic votes and there were no tax increases

until 2009 when obama came in and raise taxes with democrats. >> republican's line. isn't this a bit -- you were having republicans takes a very difficult pledge to cut taxes, give away money. isn't that like a court of axing they like passes? >> it's a pledge not to cut taxes but it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen? you don't want to change it because it's a simple guardrail. doesn't solve all the world's problems but doesn't design tax reform. it just is no net tax increases. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed? >> it's not in my mind. it's in writing when the person signs it is their fourth lingerie your congressman or senator or a step legislator. >> so you are signing this for my? >> no. and much attended a congressman for all of your life. for as long as you -- [talking over each other]

spent a summer was to tell you are pro-life or pro-choice, would you say is this for 18 months or for a cure and a half? how long are you going to be pro-choice? for as long as you're a congressman. you're telling someone who you are. i'm the kind of guy who is pro-choice or pro-life or won't raise your taxes. until tuesday. to people abroad that the. he said well, i made that promise a long time ago and i went into this district, where the conversation about how his bank felt about his mortgage. mortgage? that was 20 years ago. you still sending me letters? people make enemies and it's not for two weeks or two years. here's the thing. it's an easy, simple principle commitment. this is what harry reid doesn't understand because he doesn't share that principle. that is the government is too big now. we don't want it to get bigger. why would you give it more money to get bigger? all the effort i obama to raise taxes is to expand government,

to backfill, increase in gdp, the comment from 20 to -- 21% to 24, 25%. he needs to raise taxes to do. the fact republicans have said no, and he can't, he could've done in 2009, 2010. all the stuff about wanted to raise taxes on the rich, really? obama could've done that but he didn't. >> politico has an astonishing story about congressman tom cole, republican of oklahoma, one of the savviest operators in congress, former chairman of house republican campaign committee who yesterday talk to the republican whips and told them they would be a stronger bargaining position if he were to give taxpayers an early christmas present, vote to extend the bush tax cuts for all but the highest income earners and then negotiate later about the highest income, about the

very top bracket. that sounds like a way out of this corner spent it's an interesting tactic or strategy. the challenge is -- >> so you are not against? >> look, by announcing, we're trying to decide how to cut spending. we have a spending cutting and then -- spending problem. i think we should be focused on spending. yet chambliss, for five congressmen and senators have said we could raise taxes or, we could raise taxes here. to be fair to them, somebody like south carolina lindsey graham says i would raise taxes although if i could get into one ironclad guarantee of entitlement reform, a series of things that democrats will never give them. but when "the new york times" or cbs reports that conversation or talk by lindsey graham, they see lindsey graham said i do want to raise taxes. full stop. and the rest of the conversation

disappears. so the challenge and, i say this was leaked, i don't think he intended to have a public conversation but if you say things in front of 150 people -- >> and it was in an interview. >> then he meant to get it out. but by doing that than, all they did was have a conversation about other ways to raise taxes. if you are trying to figure how to rein in spending, we are sitting here talking, a handful coming in, as you say over 90% of republicans have taken the pledge. they all kept by the way. given all this talk but somebody might break the pledge. a handful of people have in your thoughts that under certain circumstances speed is what do you mean by in your thoughts because meaning they haven't -- >> this is a family event, be careful. >> they been think that maybe voting for tax increases. they haven't done it. >> is that what republicans to? >> they don't think about this. a few of them talk about on tv. the good news is most of them

don't. and again the handful over the last week and said we might raise taxes under certain circumstances. i've chatted with a bunch of these guys and they are very clear. i said only under these circumstances that will never happen what i do that. and in one factor the same five or six people. >> and you are, i've come to you a long time and you are a survivor, you are a pragmatist. you have a practical streak. you have never been advocate of sort of suicidal legislative strategies. so i know that you are looking for a way that republicans can come out of this with the principles impact but also politically viable. so let's just take -- >> and the economy doing reasonably well. >> understanding what you said about all things that are sent around, but if the choice is having all the taxes go up and

have the republicans be blamed and it's clear from polls that that would be the result, it's clear from reporting in political and elsewhere, then white had something this morning where he talked to financial executives who talk to the white house about their strategy, they know that they have a state of the union coming up. they know they have the inaugural address coming up. they can use the bully pulpit to blame republicans. if that's a choice, or to cut taxes for almost everyone, you would be for taking that choice, right? >> well, first of all i don't, i accept that if nothing changes that could be the scenario that plays out but i'm not in favor of waiting for the trade -- trained to reach. one of the things -- >> that's what tom cole is advocating, rather than to republicans take this path, go ahead and cut taxes for most people and then negotiate the

rest. >> let me be clear. i think we can change the playing field so the republicans don't get blamed and the president gets blamed if he's insisted on not cutting spending and going over the fiscal cliff. and the reason is the president is out campaigning. he's not being president. he spent the last year not being president. he was campaigning. now that he got reelected he is not being president again. he's not in d.c. negotiating as he said he was going to be. he's not doing campaign work again, and/or golfing. so now, where is this? i'm making two cases to the republicans and to the democrats who will listen. i believe that we should have been negotiations on the fiscal cliff. of course, that's two things. $500 billion tax increase of the 2001-2003 tax cuts lapse in, and the sequestration of spending restraint. sequestration is a good thing. you can massage it into devoted to saving $100 billion a year reducing the -- >> it's not a common republican

20 because of me a lot of defense cuts spent ahead of the of the conservative caucus, 60%, most conservative guys in the house jim jordan said the own thing worse than this request would be not to have savings. and you saw mitch mcconnell say we are not raising taxes to in the sequestered. so that people have drawn a line in the sand against the idea that we will spend all that -- >> let's try -- >> quickly from -- >> quickly from has to be a c-span. why? because only then would the president have to say, trying to consider what spending cuts what quick cbs hasn't done that. nbc hasn't done the. "washington post" hasn't in the. he is walking around campaigning. point of fact if you look at the savings in his budget include $800 billion for not occupying iraq. they kicked him out a while ago. he counts as part of his savings, $800 billion. he also counted savings savings already -- on c-span because then you can have a situation where republicans get why don't

you raise taxes all day and no focus -- second, what's the bill -- once the bill is written in each the online so that everybody can go on the computer and read it, and guys in the press can read and talk radio can read it, and citizens can read. not just congressman, not just the lobbyists in washington, d.c. this is not obamacare and then surprise to the american people. if you do those two things you will not get a bad bill. rather than try and negotiate with ourselves, which he calls doing, meaning to, but he's not negotiate with anybody when is having that conversation. let's actually have it transparency and the recent this is particularly fun is obama in 2008 promised he would to obamacare and other pigtails in front of c-span, didn't but he said he would. and they all promise, nancy pelosi, boehner and the president a bill so the online

for an agreeable time. needs to be seven days. >> we are on c-span. we are on c-span, online, and i want to be clear about this. so you are not against new revenue? >> i am certainly for new revenue for economic growth. is to give you two numbers to set the stage -- >> but -- >> this is important but if we go at 4% instead of 2% for a decade. if we were at reagan percentages rather than french or obama percentages, 4% rather than 2% for one decade, that would net $5 trillion in addition to run for governor to pay down -- of the dead obama ran up, which began in a decade from stronger growth. you don't get stronger growth by raising taxes. you get less growth. so raising taxes doesn't give you the revenue, growth did use the revenue but i'm all in favor of real revenue. not imaginary revenue which is a tax increase. >> all right. the flipside of the tom cole

article, just look at the in game but if you don't agree to small tech site now, tax hike on -- they would be a much bigger tax hike take place which would be, everyone's taxes would go up when the bush tax cuts would expire, and then democrats would get credit if the president would get credit for the largest middle-class tax cut in history on january 2. >> how you work is that is something that i think boehner and mitch mcconnell competently do. boehner is the guy who has taken the pledge and kept all the time he's been in congress but he's also the leader who kept every republican off the stimulus package the agreement, there were 30 or 40 republican appropriators who might have wanted to do a little shoplifting, and then part of the stimulus package. and boehner was able to persuade them, don't touch it.

and so it was democrat own corrupt mess that didn't work. at 20 republicans, can i get something from a district just a little thing and i vote for? then it would've been a bipartisan mess in 2010 and never happened. i think boehner and mitch mcconnell understand as you go into 2014, 2016 and the rest of the republic's life, if the republican party is apart from obama's -- it succeeds. if you hug him and join and do bad things, that's unlikely to work. >> is there a loophole in the pledge? if we go off the cliff at the end of the or, if all the bush tax cuts expire, if everybody's taxes go up and then republicans vote to eliminate taxes on everyone, or to reinstate the bush tax cuts for everyone except for the various -- they're all voting for a tax cut, right? >> here's the challenge, and this has been what harry reid doesn't get to the pledges not to make.

the pledges to the people of the state and the american people. so if your congressman percentage can go back and say 20 different changes in the tax code and spending, look at this, this is not a tax increase. this is a good piece of legislation. you should be happy and people look back and say yes. but it's not only passed -- the day you passed it and obama explains what's in the bill. bush explained what was in the 1990 tax increase, phony spending cut bill and made it sound pretty good. for a couple days. but when iraq war wound down and people look at it again they said look at this, massive permanent tax increase much bigger anything you said. and phony spending cuts that didn't happen. spending went up not down. and by the way, you tax increases hurt the economy. the economy is bad. ross perot, the guy with big ears, i like them. so it's got to pass the laugh test and not just a moment it happens but between now and the next several election.

the t.a.r.p. bill wasn't hated -- >> let's take a look, stick with your last test. so i hear in what you are saying considerable. i hear you saying that republicans should not negotiate with themselves, should push for the best deal that they could get, but you aren't here as a dead individual by not saying that people should go off the cliff speed is two things. personal, if, we have the same conversation were having a we had two years ago when addressing fiscal cliff two years ago and obama decided he didn't want to damage the economy because he was up for reelection and all the tax cuts were extended for two years. same players, same chessboard, democratic president, democratic senator extended everything to get because they decided the president wanted to save himself on not damage the economy. his position now, half of them aren't extreme the red states be so i can assess it differently.

you're a political animal. you want republicans to survive and thrive. what do you -- >> i want pro-tax candidates to survive and thrive. my goal is to the democrats also to take the pledges. what do you think the republicans should do? what should a bright light the? what is a way for them to me to do with this president is not going to give on rates and politically smart and when you consider fiscally -- >> well, that's why when i talked about the process, i want to stress, i think if the republicans it was c-span cameras and say, let's extend the bush tax cuts for a year and lets a fundamental tax reform and here's what it would look like, something like the ryan plans to but what about extending 98% of the bush tax cuts, is that the best you can get and the alternative is raising taxes on 100% of the people? >> my argument is if it's on came and the american people

watch what's going on, if bush thought that position was a vote winner, he would have run 86% of his tv ads saying that romney gives people cancer and tortures dogs. he ran a romney is a bad person campaign, not look at how wonderfully i've got it spent so if it's on c-span, and -- >> indigo mano a mano and here's the reforms. we just elected a house which ran on the right plan. >> let's stick to what you're going to see. mano a mano, these are the reforms we want them and -- >> the president sits there and says what? because he hasn't put anything on the table that passes the laugh test against but any spending restraint at all on the table. he's got a crazy democratic senate leadership which doesn't, which were two years kept all the democratic senators from voting on anything. i want and how to vote on something between now and 2014 because then they are not coming back. >> if your john boehner come if your speaker boehner, your proposal is, your red line, is

what? >> well, first of all you want to have this conversation in public and whatever happened you want online. that gives you the moral high ground and it allows the american people to focus on this. what we saw -- >> weight. what i'm hearing, what you're saying is a path to a deal. you are not saying they should go over a political cliff. you're saying they should fight for the best deal they can get but you are not advocating cutting off her nose to spite your face as my mother would say spent i had this conversation with wolf blitzer, who think this is déjà vu all over again with the end of the world, there will be dragons, we're all going to go over the debt ceiling thing. and the argument was, do you want to go into default? i said no, i don't. we want to save two and a half trillion dollars in spending which is by the way what we did. and we won that fight to the democrats always refer to the debt ceiling thing as a fiasco.

as a failure. no, no. we cut spending cuts that american taxpayers wanted and she didn't get you tax increases. want to talk about as a figure they don't finish the sense that it was a failure to raise taxes. the ds needed desperately to raise taxes in order to fund a bigger government that they're trying to make speed of my last question. i see from you sort of a retail test that it should pass the laugh test to constituents, -- >> overtime. overtime. not just -- >> there is transparency. it is on c-span, it is done in the public, which is a would be a check. and, finally, that they have pushed for the reforms and get some reforms. sounds to me like a deal that meets those tests is something that you think in the end republicans should impose. >> okay go we're getting into slight hypothetical but i

believe if you do this condition should get something very much like extend all the tax cuts for two years and then to fundamental tax reform. there's pressure on obama to do corporate fundamental tax form, not individual. and the prime is he going to take corporate rates down but his plans are to increase the rates they 119 subchapter s. small businesses pay, and just one -- in addition to we're having this conversation there are five tax increases that are not being discussed. they are the five obamacare tax increases that start january 1. they are on atr.org. but you're rather substantial but it's hundreds of millions of dollars start kicking in on the american people january 1, thanks to obamacare. when you talk about, i think the correlation of forces between the two sides is different than obama sees. obama goes i won the reelection. i get to do whatever i want, let's go. which was his attitude four years ago and he ran his car

right into the bridge abutment and five much. took 70% approval rating down to the 50, never got back. gave himself republican house in 2010 because he ran and spent all that money thinking that the american people had signed off on that because they voted for him and didn't do know that was a secret plan? he ran out and overplayed his mandate. he's about to do the same thing again. not only withstanding but with taxes. taxes are a sticky wicket in spending. the reaction by the small business community was tax increases which particularly hurt small businesses is going to make a tea party look tame spend what happens january 1 if there is no deal? >> did they go over the two cliffs, you trigger the sequester, that's good. less spending. and i'm all in favor of giving the pentagon spending and reforming how you get as long as you get the same number of dollars, so i'm a strong advocate we need to look at the pentagon and the same way we look at all other government

spending. >> is not a common republican position. >> more common than you would think but it's not common in the appropriations committee that does armed services. i talked to one of the key guys over there and i said how can i help you reform the pentagon. there must be people who have stopped -- >> i bet card and love giving that call. over norquist, how can i help? [laughter] spent i get lots of meat because i start all the meetings that way. i'm serious, we want to make the government more efficient and more effective, more transparent, make it cost less. and we are everyone's friend. transparency is a subject. ralph nader and i were lobbying the bush administration struggled and then together back in 2001. >> so that is the first cliff. what about the bush tax cuts going forward? >> i think if you went over, first of all you get towards the end, and if the republicans have played with a single, let's push it out of my for two weeks while we finish this, so you should never actually go over. just as you do with continuing resolutions. if you say look, given to, give

it a month. >> this president is not going to extend. he knows that he loses his leverage that way. >> the republicans also have other leverage, continuing resolutions on spending, and the debt ceiling increase. they can give them debt ceiling increases once a month. they can have them on a rather short leash, on a small here's your allowance, comeback next month month if you behaved. >> weight. you are proposing that the debt ceiling be increased month by month? >> monthly if he is good. weekly if he is not. it's an accordion. that's what they did, remember the first few months when the republicans took the house and senate. they took the house, they said okay, here's two weeks of continuing resolution because you say the $4 million. now you've agreed to $8 billion, and they basically, what happened with the freshman, the tea party packages came in and said this is taking too long. let's ask for it all.

as soon as you asked what ought you only get half. or as you were getting everything they wanted because you were doing three yards and a cloud of dust and you have no all those freshman newbie tea party guys are veterans. they would understand this time around why three yards and a cloud of dust, for seven months is winning. >> do i hear you, you don't think going over the cliff would be that bad? >> i don't think we're going to go over the cliff for several reasons. if the republicans do what they should do and can do, they will be in a much stronger position than obama because obama has no spending efforts and his tax increases hit many more people than are ahead. we're going to start talking to the five taxes that obamacare hits, which includes kids with special needs, $13 billion. by guys with flexible savings accounts, massive tax increase on that. and attacks on medical devices. we will reduce the cost of health care by taxing medical

devices $20 billion. that reduces the cost of health or, really? >> so if bush can if the bush tax cuts expire, tax cuts -- taxes go up for everyone. which he demanded to be dollar for dollar spending cuts? is there a greater good test it comes in? >> the greater good test is how do you move the country to reduce spending over time lex and giving the government more money, like giving someone a drinking, another bottle of scotch it's not part of his reform program. it doesn't help to give the government more money. they spend it. in 1980 give the government more money. they promised to save $3 in spending for every 1 dollar of tax. they cheated reagan. i don't think any of us we were tougher or more determined to reduce the size of government than breaking and he got cheated. bush came by, and he got taken on two to one spin we have a

question from the audience. if the answer is growth how do you grow the economy from 2% to 4%? what you don't do, what do you do? >> sure. you actively take all -- what obama has done and this is where i think it's significantly we could anything see us. although the unpleasant bits of obamacare, the tax increases, the regulations, your health and savings account, flexible savings account isn't there for you in the same way for you anymore. he can keep your insurance but you can't keep your doctor. taxes, regulations and so on. that was all put after the election. the things they thought were popular they passed right away and talked about child can stay in health care, until he is 26. of the people will pay for it and you could wait until you're sick into by health care and other people pay for it. this is great. those are the only two things they talk about. now all the geeky stuff, all the unpleasant stuff, all the sharp edges come out. we have a four years of the unpleasant stuff on obamacare coming up. and all the regulations you sort

of hear about now. if they thought these regulations worked, made the economy better, they would've been bragging about them two years ago, one year ago. so all these regulations -- >> go ahead and ask. >> we have a microphone. >> the jeld wen with the exquisite the beard. >> how does the fact the budget has not been passed for three and a half years effective this debate? and wouldn't have it at all if budgets have been passed as the long requires? >> the fact, the house has passed budgets. and my argument that the house and the republicans are significantly stronger than the democrats runs from the following. the democratic senate was elected hiding from the budget realities, not voting on the budget, delivery not allowing people to vote on things that obama said he wanted voted on

because they're so problematic in terms of being too much spending, too much taxes. and the house has twice voted for the ryan lane. and got reelected. so the house are not just freshman from the tea party in from the fields, rooms that don't know what to do. these people have one and unrelated to this post be washed out with the tide. 83 new guys came into years ago. almost all of them state. and they now stand got reelected in nice districts that were redistributed by republican legislators to be helpful for the next 10 years, and they get to run in this district and they just one with a head when which was obama democratic president winning the same time they were going. that's the toughest race they're ever going to do. first time in addition, democratic president running over your head. for the next 10 years we can't coast, that they are very strong. and they have run touching, fondling the third rail of

american politics, and reform. they have a plan both on taxes and on and titles. the democrats have none of that. >> let's talk about your image. a lot of people saw the headline is grover finally over, and warren judge said as i called around time, preparing for this breakfast, someone would describe you as somebody's rock star who hadn't cut his hair, one of the japanese soldiers who did no world war ii was over spent because opposing tax increases as out of fashion? that person is nuts. i have, i have job security that most people don't have, okay? at least the marijuana legalization people could end up out of a job in a couple of years if they win, right? but we are always going to feel our taxes are too high. we had a revolution in this country when the folks in the

colonies were paying between one and 2% of gdp in taxes while the rich were paying 20%. we were paying one to 2% and was think this is ridiculous, we are out of fear, and started shooting. so now that we have about a third, the government is taking a third of our stuff, the idea that people want higher taxes, put up with higher taxes doesn't show up in the way guys at the stay of local level are elected officials. and the people who raise taxes are failing. the good news is look, i understand this effort by reid who doesn't want to say i, travel, and again i want to raise taxes on dustin morgan with and those republicans elected, and they promised him they wouldn't i wish they would help me raise taxes. so is grover tells them what to do. that's silly. the good news is mostly public is our complete the comfortable in this game. they know perfectly well that the reason they made a commitment not to raise taxes is

they don't intend to raise taxes. the pledge made it easy to communicate, but they don't need my permission to oppose taxes. and they don't want to raise taxes. >> but you're partly a creature of immediate and there's been a radical change in how you're portrayed. john cassidy in "the new yorker," august 2005, the ringleader, how grover norquist keeps the conservative movement together, all kinds of polls. same writer, john cassidy, new yorker, this week six years later, portrays you in a diaper and he says well, the gop pushed grover over the cliff. if you were a stock i would sell you. >> again, something was said to years ago when we are coming up on the fiscal cliff in and people trying to make -- if you're trying to argue we should raise taxes and you can attack me personally because the tax issue is a little bit bigger -- >> it's not attacking you personally. it's thing, it's not so much a mathematical argument that it's

an argument has been a tectonic change in weight these issues are recorded, even by a lot of top republicans. >> that would be interesting except it's not too. the same six guys, republican the talked about maybe raising taxes at the same six people they have brought out two years ago saying the same thing. and again, they didn't raise taxes before. they just thought about it. i don't want to be too rough on the saxby chambliss but he's never voted for taxes. he just talking out loud about maybe someday doing them. again, we have 92 plus guys in the house and senate have taken a commitment. we have governors and state legislators have taken the pledge and attempted. governors who are not raising taxes are succeeding to the ones who do are failing. the reason why it's easier for me, you could have said, you've could have written the story in 1990 when bush broke the pledge, first president to ever sign the pledge -- rake in help me -- >> the point is job security. >> the tax issue is there and

it's an important part of the modern republican party. that democrats -- we can all fight about on trees or something else. that's my goal. everybody agrees with taxes. we should find something else to argue about. so this is been extremely helpful. and again, when bush raised taxes, get that break the pledge, or two years later did you have a i agree so percentages of all the guys running for office taking the pledge because they knew that the american people demanded seriousness on the part of an elected official that they wouldn't raise taxes? not thinking this was some transactional promise you could break. so you can lose a fight and end up with the issue significantly stronger. that's what happened with obama to the democrats lost the house spent that's what you think may happen here. >> yeah. well, not planning on losing the tax debate we're having right now. at the tax issue will be more

powerful in 2014 and 16 than today. >> so even if republicans lose you believe the issue will be more powerful? >> it is possible if the republicans lose in such a way they've got the fingerprints on the murder weapon, then you have a problem. bush couldn't run again in 92 successfully because he had his fingerprints on a very bad deal which was back on spending and bad on taxes, and he broke his word. you do that and have a problem. as long as republicans have clarity between their approach and -- incredible, not just -- this is what we secretly mean he you never seem to be having tea with guys who is are doing bad things. at the public, the people you're trying to impress -- >> weight. >> the middle guys. >> so if republicans have clarity you think you'll be okay? i hear you are saying you will not have this super literal interpretation of your pledge. you will consider the circumstances? >> okay. since the american people in each congressional district

voted for people -- they are the ones who appoint them to say what are you talking about? i didn't have to sing anybody who say did you notice bush raised taxes? they noticed. so if the deal is back, if it isn't the spending we thought if taxes are not de minimis or evening out of something, and people look at and say that's a massive tax increase and no spending cuts, that would be very bad. and nobody can call me on the phone as a grover, could you fix this? because despite the fantasy of reid and i'm not the guy who handles this. the american people make these decisions to my advantage is on for lower taxes and so what they. and all the lovely pulling that you see keeps confirming that but you always have to watch two things. on the day they did the exit poll, should raise taxes to reduce the deficit, 63%, no. they get other polls and get 60% people would be for some taxes and some circumstances. the question before us now,

should we raise taxes to pay down the deficit, 63%, no on election day. on the question of if they raise taxes on the rich do you think you'll go after you at the same time in any budget deal, 75% of the american people understand that what the democrats do is play trickle-down taxation. you talk about taxing the rich and then they -- >> speaking of election day, we were talking backstage, you said the republican party should you an autopsy on would have on november 6. what do you think? >> because you don't, like the cis and csis shows on tv, right, where they open up the cadavers and they take all the organs out and look them over. tyou just do what with saic one would hear, that must be it and then run off and announce you solve the problem. >> say his panic voters speak it's not just the hispanic voters but i think the republican party as a free market economy i think the republican party should stay with its reagan, bush, bush

bashing and would nominate the most -- the party that is supposed the immigration nominate john mccain who is the spokesman for comprehensive. it's not only then where the party actually has been electing people. it's where its policies are but a few of free market economics, you want todd and youth come into this country. if you're a national security conservative, what is the trend going to run the world or be very important and powerful in the world in 30, 40, 50, 100 years in japan isn't? because they forget to have kids and they don't immigration. china, same thing. and your same thing. immigration is our competitive advantage against the rest of the world as an economic power, military power. >> so what other ones which a look out from november 6? >> that's one piece. i think we need to look at that our candidates. we ran a candidate, romney was a

great guy, not what the 86% of obama said about him, but how do you make the case of our romney would govern when he was governor of massachusetts for four years, three tea party? >> let's stipulate romney was a bad candidate. at what you get a better one? >> there are 30 republican governors. 24 of them have republican legislatures which is what romney did now. he had 83% democratic legislator. they shot goals on them, took shots on goal for four years and some of them with her and some of them didn't and he was a very good goalie but you can't turn around and is looking all the things i did in massachusetts. democrats attacked him and said the massachusetts economy was bad. it was. i taxes and all these other things he couldn't fix without legislature. look, i'm from massachusetts prior to immigrating to the united states. [laughter] and it's tough, it's tough to be governor there and show people what you have accomplished.

now, if he had been governor of these 24 states with republican legislation than the governor of texas have been doing amazing things and work reform. looking at school choice. have to give speeches so you're saying rick perry is a candidate for 26 and? >> first of all his got to get over the back pain stuff. rick perry has a tremendous track record of success, probably running again. could run for president. >> how do you -- >> ten of these 30 are or will be next to an want to see them speak so you think you'll be strong if he ran against the? now. >> you talk to -- >> you also have bobby jindal of fluids and. ohio, indiana, wisconsin, scott walker change the world spent you talked before about how 1972 you were 12 or 13 you work for president nixon. yet index card. what do you think the republican party should learn from what the obama campaign did with technology on november 6? >> i wrote index cards with the

addresses of the campaign contributors. this guy sent in $5. we were not high-tech. you were talk about having -- you should have one of the key republicans from the campaign come in and began the autopsy. i was talking with reince priebus. you got to take all the organs out and look at all in one of them is to get out the vote effort. people focus on the. it may well be, this is it, that's what was the big deal. maybe it's one of 10 things. i think -- >> what else is on your list of? >> i think we need somebody who has a track record to speak let's talk about the mechanics of the campaign. like what they'll -- >> get out the vote. you've got to focus on issues and have your candidates practice practice practice your we have a campaign this last time with 10 people on the stage. several of them were trying to sell books. some of them wanted to do we do talk shows. summer doing marriage

counseling. maybe three of them were actually running for president. i would like to figure out a way to have everybody up on the stage in those debates who is actually running for president the i like alan keyes. he's great fun to listen to. could have taped them and listen listen to him all day. but he's not running for president, okay, and jackie would be on the stage. >> how do you know that? i can tell you, republicans are worried, we did a story the other day about how there's at least 20 possible republican candidates, at least a dozen of them are serious, worried about to be to field. what is your solution? >> well, they now can change the rules for the republican convention between conventions. so the rnc change the rules in this convention to allow them to change the rules. so they can tighten of eligibility. i don't think there's anything wrong with asking people to ante up, raise $100,000 for the party

that will go into the general election if you want to be in the debates. be a team player, show what you've accomplished something. i would hope the first three debates would be, one, the first one in front of republican governors. we've been asking the question. one of the challenges, left of center, media got asking the republicans questions about sex, and then guys at home saying republicans seem to be obsessed with the sex. no. anderson cooper kept asking this question and had to answer them. get a republican who's interested in republican issues on how to govern. asking the question. other governors didn't do it with members of the house. vendor with members of the rnc. invite c-span and anybody else wants to cover it, that control the dialogue so that the questions that republicans want to -- >> would you suggest that to reince priebus the other speakers he said that's a brilliant idea, grover. [laughter] so he said, something along those l